HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1511/2026 CM(3953/2026). Abdul Salam Dar. …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Khan Sameer, Advocate. VERSUS Union Territory Of J And K And Others. …Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER 07.07.2026 1. The petitioner- Abdul Salam Dar a 78-years aged person is seeking to agitate in the present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 19.06.2026 a matter relating to land acquisition which is said to have originated way back in year 2005 in connection with the construction of Sinthan Kishtiward road. 2. The petitioner solicited a reference under section 18 of the J&K State Land Acquisition Act Svt., 1990 before the District Judge Anantnag on File No. 1/Reference of 2015 which was joined by reference on File No. 2/Reference preferred by four persons namely- Mohammd Ramzan Dar, Gh. Nabi Dar, Mohammad Shaban Dar and Gull Mohd Dar. 3. The Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag came to dispose of said tagged references by holding that the references 134 Suppl-I made by the Collector, Land Acquisition were not valid as the same were time-barred. 4. Against said outcome, the petitioner herein, instead of taking recourse to an appropriate legal course of action with respect to his purported grievance which now is forming subject matter of the present writ petition, took the matter in a regular first appeal No. 10/2023 before this Court challenging the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag. 5. This Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, came up with factual references to the extent that the petitioner with respect to his acquired land measuring 2 kanal and 14 marlas under Survey No. 477 Min situated at Brakpora Anantnag had accepted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 lac per kanal, though under protest but by virtue of a private negotiations which took place on 29.01.2008 whereby the interested parties i.e., the land owners had agreed to the rate of Rs. 5 lac per kanal as compensation. 6. This Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, came up with the factual observation that the petitioner had accepted the compensation under protest before the formal acquisition of the land took place in March 2012 and from this aspect notice of the fact was attributed to the petitioner that he had knowledge of the award/private negotiation and, thereafter, he sought reference by an application made on 04.07.2012. 7. Regular First Appeal No. 09/2023 was, thus, dismissed by virtue of an order dated 27.09.2024 against which the appellant preferred LPA No. 285/2024. 8. Said appeal was objected to on the ground of maintainability by the other side, and the said objection weighed with the Hon’ble letters patent bench, which held the appeal to be not maintainable while reserving liberty in favour of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as appellant, to withdraw the appeal and seek review of the appellate order dated 27.09.2024. 9. The letters patent appeal was, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with such liberty which led to the filing of Review Petition No. 97/2024 before the learned appellate Bench. 10. Said review petition was found to be devoid of merit and came to be dismissed by virtue of an order dated 08.04.2026. 11. Now, the petitioner has come up as an old wine in a new bottle, by filing the present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India under the guise of which he seeks quashment of the entire proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondents relating to the acquisition of his land and also seeks a mandamus unto the respondents to pay adequate compensation to him for the land taken for a public purpose. 12. The two relevant reliefs which are being sought by the petitioner through the medium of the present writ petition, of course, relate back to the year 2005 when the land acquisition process originated. 13. At all relevant points of time before seeking the reference, the petitioner if had any grievance with regard to procedural lapses in the land acquisition process, had full opportunity to approach this Court by invoking its equitable jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner instead ventured to gamble in the reference proceedings and thereafter pursued the matter in a regular first appeal before this Court and then in a letters patent appeal, and lastly in a review petition, thus completing a full circle only to come up with a last throw of the dice in the form of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. This Court is afraid that the writ petition is fit one to be entertained, as it suffers from delay and laches and the nature of the reliefs claimed are simply not grantable by reference to an exercise which had taken place dating back to the year 2005 onwards as for the sake of petitioner’s farfetched expectation, clock cannot be put back. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 07.07.2026 Bisma Jan.